Brexit

[Drareg]

Like I've said, you label me as a xenophobe, but I'm not. You can have total free market and free movement of people. If people are valuable enough, they will stay in a country. Otherwise, they realise they cannot compete in a fair system, and they leave. No violence, just a voluntary choice. Fine by me. It's a self-moderating system.

But if you have taxation and a welfare state, which currently takes money from native Europeans and transfers it to immigrants, you have to have borders and border control. A welfare state can only be supported if an equal amount of money comes in and goes out. I know you disagree with me on the relative inability of low IQ immigrants to provide enough value to European nations. But, given that premise, you are stealing from those that create value, and giving it to those that cannot, which leads to economic collapse. There are other larger economic problems created by big government, unrelated to immigration. But this just accelerates the decline, and makes the problem greater.

Where would you get the money to enslave people? Or create your own weapons and protect a monopoly? Who would see value in that and pay for that sort of private enterprise? Nobody. People wouldn't buy your products if you created a standing army to enforce a monopoly.

Anyways that's all from me. Just explaining the basics of the theory. Read Ludwig Von Mises for a much more comprehensive explanation, or google search anarchism and go from there.[/QUOTE

The welfare state existed long before immigrants, it was abused long before immigrants, welfare culture is an issue in the uk, your arguments has no legs, welfare states without strict means testing are no use. Give current humanity free money for nothing and most will do nothing.

You don't need money to enslave people, you use the real money,creativity,your brain. Money was created by the brain/creativity, a way will be found.

If the standing army were called Doctors for example you might look at it differently.
Coercion comes before force.

The welfare state existed long before immigrants, it was abused long before immigrants, welfare culture is an issue in the uk, your arguments has no legs, welfare states without strict means testing are no use. Give current humanity free money for nothing and most will do nothing.

You don't need money to enslave people, you use the real money,creativity,your brain. Money was created by the brain/creativity, a way will be found.

If the standing army were called Doctors for example you might look at it differently.
Coercion comes before force.

 

[Drareg]

Yes, some people live like that and don't go mad. They end up with PhDs and tell everyone how to live their lives.

What he is referring to is narrow theories used to explain the world. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. Genetic and environmental determinist theories both appear logically sound on the surface of it, don't they?



You can't travel if culture disappears. Already parts of London are not unlike Pakistan. I guess a Brit could just go to London and save on plane fare.



I'd wager their knowledge of biology outstrips that of most MDs and PhDs, if only in the practical application.



And how are those characteristics passed on? Via genes. As I said maybe 10 times, I don't agree with the whole genetic/mutation theory of selection. I'll say again, I agree with Peat WRT epigenetics. Doesn't mean a potato can be turned into a tomato which is about where your pure environmental explanation takes you.

Many questioned those theories at the start.

 

[wiggles92]

America is a nation of immigrants,you felt it was great at some point in the past yet complain of immigrants now.

America was a nation of immigrants almost entirely from Britain and the Netherlands, and then later Germany and Italy. It's only since the 60s they have imported third world immigrants, and after several generations of being allowed exactly the same rights as those living in America, they still consume social welfare at far higher rates and struggle to compete for higher earning jobs. You'll say its because white Americans are racist. The Asian immigrants such as the Japanese came with exactly the same opportunities, and have reached parity with the native whites. This is all right in front of your face.

 

[wiggles92]

The welfare state existed long before immigrants, it was abused long before immigrants, welfare culture is an issue in the uk, your arguments has no legs, welfare states without strict means testing are no use. Give current humanity free money for nothing and most will do nothing.

You don't need money to enslave people, you use the real money,creativity,your brain. Money was created by the brain/creativity, a way will be found.

If the standing army were called Doctors for example you might look at it differently.
Coercion comes before force.

Those on welfare in the UK are those with the lowest IQs. Coercion is force for gods sake. You don't rebut anything. You say lots of words but for the life of me I can't decipher what you're saying. Right I'm genuinely done. This is a waste of time for both of us. I should stop getting lured in by your rubbish.

Ban me Charlie if you want. I don't think you will because you'll see I'm justified in showing my irritation. I'll try and stick to pure nutrition topics from now on, which aren't infected with this gibberish.

 

[Drareg]

America was a nation of immigrants almost entirely from Britain and the Netherlands, and then later Germany and Italy. It's only since the 60s they have imported third world immigrants, and after several generations of being allowed exactly the same rights as those living in America, they still consume social welfare at far higher rates and struggle to compete for higher earning jobs. You'll say its because white Americans are racist. The Asian immigrants such as the Japanese came with exactly the same opportunities, and have reached parity with the native whites. This is all right in front of your face.

No it's not in front of my face, you have no studies for this ,it's like the other guy with grand assumptions about black mothers.
Where is your study for the immigrants from theses periods and several generations later?

Why don't you mention African Americans in America at this time ? If they were not enslaved they would have achieve greater things.
They were made to feel inferior ,knocking confidence right out of them.

America had a strong hand in creating the third world as with most of the west, what don't you get here? You realise the Dutch done horrific things invading other countries? This isn't intelligence but raw primal force against natives.

The elephant in the room here is the Irish who had the label of third world and inferior race within the British empire propaganda machine, the Irish have done incredible things in America and specifically on the island itself, third world with lower IQs or just rampant propaganda from the empires of high serotonin lower intelligent empires? Ireland achieved this at an alarming speed.
The term black Irish is another myth, I'm guessing it comes from the propaganda of Iberian Irish which is another myth.

 

[kyle]

The original Americans were colonists and settlers who carried with them their culture. It's obvious in their names. E.g., New England, New York (once New Amsterdam), etc. Plenty of these towns sprung up as you head westward with names from their original homelands, German, Dutch, etc. It's historical revisionism to say this country was built by immigrants.

20th century immigration was of a whole different nature, squeezing new comers into already settled land, so yes, there was a lot of resentment and anger toward the new comers and even with the great similarities, racially and culturally, the culture shock was massive and destructive. A watering down and disorienting hit to our identity.

It's one thing to say yes, mass immigration happened and here we are in America, it's another to say it was entirely a good thing that can't be questioned.

 

[Drareg]

Those on welfare in the UK are those with the lowest IQs. Coercion is force for gods sake. You don't rebut anything. You say lots of words but for the life of me I can't decipher what you're saying. Right I'm genuinely done. This is a waste of time for both of us. I should stop getting lured in by your rubbish.

Ban me Charlie if you want. I don't think you will because you'll see I'm justified in showing my irritation. I'll try and stick to pure nutrition topics from now on, which aren't infected with this gibberish.

Basically Charlie he wants to stick to threads where everyone will agree with his xenophobic whims,he will post a dodgy study to justify it,when it's pulled apart he will ignore it.

You started this thread off with this tone,you still and the others on here provide no conclusive evidence for your theories/gibberish.
Another attempt to create the illusion of the high road.

 

[Drareg]

The original Americans were colonists and settlers who carried with them their culture. It's obvious in their names. E.g., New England, New York (once New Amsterdam), etc. Plenty of these towns sprung up as you head westward with names from their original homelands, German, Dutch, etc. It's historical revisionism to say this country was built by immigrants.

20th century immigration was of a whole different nature, squeezing new comers into already settled land, so yes, there was a lot of resentment and anger toward the new comers and even with the great similarities, racially and culturally, the culture shock was massive and destructive. A watering down and disorienting hit to our identity.

It's one thing to say yes, mass immigration happened and here we are in America, it's another to say it was entirely a good thing that can't be questioned.

That's right and this highly intelligent superior race wiped out the natives in many parts lest we forget, with this in mind it's not really historical revisionism in some parts. They kind of squeezed in.

 

[Simonsays]

Those on welfare in the UK are those with the lowest IQs.

As they say on the Forum, do you have any studies to support this? and what does IQ mean anyway, how about EQ?

They might also be those coming from a poor family upbringing, living in areas previously reliant on industries now defunct.

Most of those " on welfare" are indigenous white living in the industrial wastelands, thanks to the catastrophic economic policies of Thatcher Govt from which they never recovered, which was partly reflected in the Brexit vote, as "the immigrants" were not going to be let in and maybe sent "home"

Immigrants have been the scapegoats since eternity, remember the American Know Nothings???

(The Know-Nothing party was an outgrowth of the strong anti-immigrant and especially anti-Roman Catholic sentiment that started to manifest itself during the 1840s. )

Does Detroits reliance now on welfare stem from their low IQ or the collapse of the car industry?? Maybe their IQ rapidly declined from the 60s until now?

Asians in Britain who have done well financially are the middle class educated ones (English speakers )deported out of Kenya by Idi Amin in the mid 1970s. Asians direct from Bangladesh/Pakistan/India were much poorer and educationally worse off (no English) have done less so. Maybe this can be explained by a genetic mutation. Im joking.

Why am i getting drawn into this???!!!!!!

 

[jaguar43]

This may be helpful to you The Myth of Natural Monopoly

Anyways I said I was done, but I keep biting. If you have an inclination to understand these things, you can read Ludwig Von Mises. I've yet to come across a question about potential pitfalls of a fully free market that, in my opinion, hasn't been sufficiently explained by him. I'm saying this in total sincerity, no sarcasm.

Corporations are not interested in rebuilding duplicate utilities because it's too expensive to rebuild. They would be losing more money if they did that because of the startup cost and the fix cost. How would companies rebuild water and sewage systems without being extremely wasteful and expensive. Or build new roads in places like New York City where there is practically no room to build new roads. There is a reason why they are called natural monopolies. You can't just replicate them on a large scale.

It is highly unlikely that corporations would want to rebuild utilities and transportation. So it will be left in the few hands after deregulation. Price gauging will be every where. Most peoples income will be siphoned off to pay for these monopolies. Markets will shrink leading to market failure. But wait, Austrians don't believe in market failure.


It's crazy how some people don't believe that natural monopolies exist.

There is a reason why China is the most competitive economy in the world. All their public utilities, water systems, transportation, healthcare are state-owned. Making it cheap to do business. Labor isn't expensive because people don't have to use all their income to pay for rent seeking. It's ironically how anti-capitalism libertarians actually are. They are really promoting a feudalistic economy.

 

[wiggles92]

No it's not in front of my face, you have no studies for this ,it's like the other guy with grand assumptions about black mothers.
Where is your study for the immigrants from theses periods and several generations later?

Why don't you mention African Americans in America at this time ? If they were not enslaved they would have achieve greater things.
They were made to feel inferior ,knocking confidence right out of them.

America had a strong hand in creating the third world as with most of the west, what don't you get here? You realise the Dutch done horrific things invading other countries? This isn't intelligence but raw primal force against natives.

The elephant in the room here is the Irish who had the label of third world and inferior race within the British empire propaganda machine, the Irish have done incredible things in America and specifically on the island itself, third world with lower IQs or just rampant propaganda from the empires of high serotonin lower intelligent empires? Ireland achieved this at an alarming speed.
The term black Irish is another myth, I'm guessing it comes from the propaganda of Iberian Irish which is another myth.

 

[jaguar43]

I'd wager their knowledge of biology outstrips that of most MDs and PhDs, if only in the practical application.

Ray Peat was being sarcastic. Tell me you understood that.

And how are those characteristics passed on? Via genes. As I said maybe 10 times, I don't agree with the whole genetic/mutation theory of selection. I'll say again, I agree with Peat WRT epigenetics. Doesn't mean a potato can be turned into a tomato which is about where your pure environmental explanation takes you.

Darwin had suggested that the mature organism reconstitutes itself in the germ cells, by sending gemmules or pangens (buds or sprouts or derivatives) from its various parts, so that the parent's traits would be incorporated into the reproductive cells. This was called pangenesis, meaning that the whole organism was the source for the new offspring. This theory opened the possibility for newly acquired traits to be passed on. It grew out of the experience of animal breeders and horticulturists, who were dedicated to improving their breeds and strains, by selecting the best individuals grown under the best conditions.

Estrogen, memory and heredity: Imprinting and the stress response

If you think the inheritance of acquired characteristics mean a potato can turn in to a tomato than you don't understand what it means.

 

[jaguar43]

America was a nation of immigrants almost entirely from Britain and the Netherlands, and then later Germany and Italy. It's only since the 60s they have imported third world immigrants, and after several generations of being allowed exactly the same rights as those living in America, they still consume social welfare at far higher rates and struggle to compete for higher earning jobs. You'll say its because white Americans are racist. The Asian immigrants such as the Japanese came with exactly the same opportunities, and have reached parity with the native whites. This is all right in front of your face.

No americans don't have any jobs because of the economic policy of the United States. It has nothing to do immigration.

 

[jaguar43]

The original Americans were colonists and settlers who carried with them their culture. It's obvious in their names. E.g., New England, New York (once New Amsterdam), etc. Plenty of these towns sprung up as you head westward with names from their original homelands, German, Dutch, etc. It's historical revisionism to say this country was built by immigrants.

20th century immigration was of a whole different nature, squeezing new comers into already settled land, so yes, there was a lot of resentment and anger toward the new comers and even with the great similarities, racially and culturally, the culture shock was massive and destructive. A watering down and disorienting hit to our identity.

It's one thing to say yes, mass immigration happened and here we are in America, it's another to say it was entirely a good thing that can't be questioned.

Immigrants are not squeezing anyone else out. The mortality rate for the middle age white population is increasing for things that have nothing to do with immigration. Suicide, drug overdose, alcohol poisoning and health problems.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15078.full.pdf

If there were no immigrations to begin with they would still have the same mortality rate. Why, because of the United states government, social, and economic policy. Stop blaming people who have nothing to do with the issue.

 

[Kyle M]

Hey wiggles92, I'm digging the Austrian references. But stop wasting your time, a statist couldn't change your mind and you're not going to change a statist's. There's a 0% chance any of the central planning, authoritarian economy people in this thread will read that Mises reference or any other.

 

[Kyle M]

Kyle, it was.

Youre going to tell us it was done, as some kind of reaction against big federal leftist central Government, by states asserting their rights.

Not as a reaction to " Black Republican" Lincoln being elected President and the inbuilt slave majority in the Senate, losing their power with the creation of new non slave states.

It was a reactionary revolution by the slave owners of the south. The industrial "capitalist " north was always going to win against the agrarian "slave economy"

But hey ho, i know you wont be convinced.

A white hetero male (American Civil War lover)

There were multiple factions in the North, one was hardcore abolitionists. Lincoln was not one of them, he was a railroad lawyer. The central reason around the Civil War was national greatness, the idea that larger and more powerful nations are a good unto themselves, a religious kind of belief. Also much of the government budget came from tariffs brought in on Southern ports. There was no income tax then, or most of the other taxes we "enjoy" today.

 

[jaguar43]

Hey wiggles92, I'm digging the Austrian references. But stop wasting your time, a statist couldn't change your mind and you're not going to change a statist's. There's a 0% chance any of the central planning, authoritarian economy people in this thread will read that Mises reference or any other.

The only way impose libertarian values is at gunpoint through power and censorship. Either in the form of a Pinochet style coup in chile where they assassinated all labor leaders and political opposition. Or academic censorship like in the U.S where you can't get publish in the Economic Journals if you don't subscribe to the neoliberal libertarian ideas. Libertarianism is the real authoritarian economy.

 

[Kyle M]

Your ignorance of libertarianism and history will prevent you from understanding otherwise.

 

[Kyle M]

I can't get over the phrase "impose libertarian values." It's called the non-aggression principle and is the only value on earth that is in diametric opposition to coercive force.

 

[jaguar43]

I can't get over the phrase "impose libertarian values." It's called the non-aggression principle and is the only value on earth that is in diametric opposition to coercive force.

History doesn't show that. The Coup d'état in Chile for example. When Pinochet came into power, Chicago School with Friedman went there to "advise" him on economic policy. To have a "free market" you can't political opposition, labor unions or social activist. So the first thing they did was assassinated the labor leaders and political opposition. They closed all the Universities except the ones that preach libertarianism and arrested professors who weren't "true believers". You can't have libertarianism and a "free market"without authoritarian control. In Argentina and other third world countries similar things happened.

In the U.S you can't get publish in the economic journals if you don't subscribe to the neoliberalism/libertarianism. If you try to teach any other economic policy, then you'll get fired. Think tanks are taking over economic departments by funneling money from "donors" and board members. Since the public education isn't getting the funding it use to, it leaving it open to billionaires like the koch brothers to capture the economic curriculum. Censorship is crucial.